Honestly, I've seen the AP do something similar. If a Democratic Congressmen is found to be in a scandal, they'll sometimes list them as a (Rep) ... for representative.
I don't know what to make of those screen shots. I do know that they were called Republicans during a whole lot of their news stories. Sanford was ripped apart on many of the daytime shows and they took the angle how the other Republicans wanted him gone.
Were these three instances where they screwed up or was this part of a pattern. Maybe it is just all made up, I don't know. I do know that they are monitored every hour of every day so I can't imagine it happening much more than shown.
I also have noticed that when watching MSNBC and CNN they have not listed party affiliation when talking about scandals involving Democrats. Is that a purposeful omission or did I just notice it because I assume they are always biased?
Those are good points about other stations. I don't really know.. I've been reading the news online more and more and watching/listening to the news less and less. I get tired of the rhetoric pretty quickly I guess.
Apparently reading isn't your strong suit either. I put, right there in my post, clear as day, that I *do not* watch Fox News. Yet, you're the one still accusing me of watching it, choking it down and spreading it ... so who's the one lying now?
Ah, don't let it bother you. See, if you don't toe the huffpo line, mac accuses you of being a radical rw'er and a FOX news lover that is spoon fed lies.
I honestly could not tell you the last time I watched ANY national fox news. I don't think I ever have to be honest. Yet the fact that I don't watch it sure doesn't stop mac from saying I do.
When he runs out of articles to post, he goes on the "fox lies" attack mode.
The first one in your montage is from a local affiliate, not the national Fox News Channel.
The 2nd 2 do appear to be from Fox News itself.
Just thought that I'd point that one out.
As far as minor stuff like that ..... hell, most people don't know who their Congressman or Senator is ...... so I doubt that they remember what party a guy was reported to be a member of. It also could serve to rile up the loyal viewers against the guy .... only to find out that he's "one of theirs". I'm not sure that's a kindness.
Anyway, if anyone gets all of their information from a single news source, then they are asking to me poorly informed. The person who gets 100% of their information from Fox News is likely to be as poorly informed as the person who gets 100% of their news from the Daily Show, or the Huffington Post. I bet that there are a few people belonging to the latter 2 groups who hang out on the boards as well ... and probably even more than those who watch only Fox News.
I very rarely watch TV news ..... and rarely a national broadcast, as I don't have cable or satellite. I do read over Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Cleveland.com, Ohio.com, as well as a few others on a daily, or every other day basis. Once in a while, I'll even read the Huffington post just to see what the nut jobs there are saying. More rarely I'll read townhall.com, the Drudge Report, National Review, The Nation, The New Republic, and even Real Clear Politics ... which I once though just had polling data, but they do have a great deal more information conglomerated on their site as well.
I will also watch BBC and CNN International and sometimes some podcasts from other sources on TV via my Roku.
I know that some people will be offended by some of those, and that's the point. Some of them offend me at times too. I want to try and see more than one point of view ... even if it just gives me the ability to point and laugh at them.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Yeah I had a similar post typed up a while ago to be quite honest. I think it's important to get news from a variety of sources and I like to formulate my own view on things based on that information and more complete viewpoints. As an added benefit, it becomes a lot easier to point out the inherent bias that some sources always seem to have.
I disagree with your opinion. I know that all news outlets occassionally have factual info, even if by accident (Pravda). Fox news is more accurate than most. The Network even apologizes when wrong. Now isn't that a novel idea.
They of course don't apologize for their show's hosts occassionally going overboard (O'Reilly & Geraldo), but they make a legitimate attempt to express a fair and balanced opinion. CNN, CNBC, NBC, ABC & CBS seem to only express the Liberal view and dissenting or diverse views from the Party line aren't tolerated or entertained, unless given by the lunatic fringe element. Some of the Liberal co hosts on Fox, actually make good suggestions or observations on rare occassions. After all, It's very hard to be wrong all the time. In fact, some of Fox's Liberal hosts would do a great job on some of the other networks.
There are many Americans who are greatly dissatisfied with the President's performance to date. I'm just one of many.
I wish you a great night of news no matter what news outlets you may use.
No Emoticons were harmed in the creation of this response.
Ted Nugent said,"that Davy Crockett shooting at Santa Anna's Army was the right thing to do, he just wouldn't get the Hispanic vote today".
I wonder how many Fox News "fans" are aware that Fox News took legal action against two of their own Fox News reporters, who refused to change their findings, and "LIE" about what they found in an investigative report about BGH (bovine growth hormone) being used by dairy farms.
Here is a short story about the case...
Hidden Danger in Your Milk? JURY VERDICT OVERTURNED ON LEGAL TECHNICALITY Welcome to the online news source for anyone who drinks milk or consumes other dairy products…and depends on the news media to report suspected health concerns accurately and honestly.
Here you will find behind-the-scenes details about how a large share of America’s milk supply has quietly become adulterated with the effects of a synthetic hormone (bovine growth hormone, or BGH) secretly injected into cows…and how pressure from the hormone maker Monsanto led Fox TV to fire two of its award-winning reporters and sweep under the rug much of what they discovered but were never allowed to broadcast.
After a five-week trial and six hours of deliberation which ended August 18, 2000, a Florida state court jury unanimously determined that Fox "acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs' news reporting on BGH." In that decision, the jury also found that Jane's threat to blow the whistle on Fox's misconduct to the FCC was the sole reason for the termination... and the jury awarded $425,000 in damages which makes her eligible to apply for reimbursement for all court costs, expenses and legal fees.
Fox appealed and prevailed February 14, 2003 when an appeals court issued a ruling reversing the jury, accepting a defense argument that had been rejected by three other judges on at least six separate occasions. CLICK HERE for more details on latest ruling. CLICK HERE to view how Fox13 reported the ruling.
The whistle-blowing journalists, twice refused Fox offers of big-money deals to keep quiet about what they knew, filed their landmark lawsuit April 2, 1998 and survived three Fox efforts to have their case summarily dismissed. It is the first time journalists have used a whistleblower law to seek a legal remedy for being fired by for refusing to distort the news. Steve and Jane are now considering an appeal to the Florida state Supreme Court.
The journalists happen to be married to each other and this website, created by their friend and former television news producer Jon Duffey, was posted on the day the whistleblower suit was filed. It continues to provide details of the suit and subsequent appeals, as well as recent developments regarding rBGH and other genetically engineered foods.
Click the buttons to the right to learn more about this lawsuit and the controversy surrounding milk and other genetically modified foods and how they are being covered in the media, learn what you can do to help, and even post your own thoughts on our Bulletin Board. New developments in the journalists’ lawsuit and the latest important news about BGH and GE foods and media coverage issues are posted regularly. You are invited to return often and click the blue box at the top of this page to keep up to date with these important issues.
BOTTOM LINE...FOX NEWS FOUGHT HARD TO LEGALLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO "LIE"...their entire niche in news is based on the practice of lying about anything they choose to lie about.
I feel sorry for the poor Americans who believe they are being told the truth, when the listen to Fox News.
Many Americans fail to understand that a foreigner, Australian, Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, tries to control your brain and your thought process, via his various news sources.
All of us are part of Uncle Rupert's grand experiment to find out just how dumb Americans can be.
Fox News and Uncle Rupert lie like hell...those who believe him and his media sources, are "owned" by him.
You have raised some compelling points mac and I am now swayed. When I get home from work tonight I am going to tear down my shrine to Rupert Murdoch... in its place I will be building a new shrine to George Soros, I hope to make it look like yours. Can you please e-mail me the plans and specifications for building a shrine so I can worship at the alter of Austrian born, former Nazi accomplice, owner of the democratic party, George Soros. Thanks I'll check my inbox hourly in anticipation.
In 1997, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre began work on a story regarding the agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto and recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a milk additive that had been approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration but also blamed for a number of health issues. Wilson and Akre planned a four part investigative report on Monsanto's use of rBGH, which prompted Monsanto to write to Roger Ailes, president of Fox News Channel in an attempt to have the report reviewed for bias and because of the "enormous damage that can be done" as a result of the report.[6]
WTVT did not run the report, and later argued in court that the report was not "breakthrough journalism." Wilson and Akre then claimed that Monsanto's actions constituted the news broadcast telling lies, while WTVT countered looking only for fairness. According to Wilson and Akre, they rewrote the report over 80 times over the course of 1997, and WTVT decided to exercise "its option to terminate their employment contracts without cause,"[7] and did not renew their contracts in 1998. WTVT later ran a report about Monsanto and rBGH in 1998, and the report included defenses from Monsanto.[8]
After Wilson and Akre's contracts were not renewed, they filed a lawsuit concerning WTVT's "news distortion" under Florida's whistleblower laws, claiming their termination was retaliation for "resisting WTVT's attempts to distort or suppress the BGH story."[9] In a joint statement, Wilson claimed that he and Akre "were repeatedly ordered to go forward and broadcast demonstrably inaccurate and dishonest versions of the story," and "were given those instructions after some very high-level corporate lobbying by Monsanto (the powerful drug company that makes the hormone) and also ... by members of Florida’s dairy and grocery industries."[10] The trial commenced in summer 2000 with a jury dismissing all of the claims brought to trial by Wilson, but siding with one aspect of Akre's complaint, awarding Akre $425000 and agreeing that Akre was a whistleblower because she believed there were violations of the 1934 Federal Communications Act and because she planned on reporting WTVT to the Federal Communications Commission. Reason magazine, referring to the case, noted that Akre's argument in the trial was that Akre and Wilson believed news distortion occurred, but that they did not have to prove this was the case.[11]
An appeal was filed, and a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102.... Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[12] The appeal did not address any falsification claims, noting that "as a threshold matter... Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute," but noted that the lower court ruled against all of Wilson's charges and all of Akre's claims with the exception of the whistleblower claim that was overturned.[13]
Well Pdawg, that's a pretty stupid write-up on it. It's just like a big long list of facts and historical events almost like its laid out there for me to make up my own mind.... I need one that only tells me the story from Wilson/Akres side and ultimately reaches the conclusion that Fox News is bad... when you post the REAL story like that, let me know.
Quote: Can someone refresh my memory? Was it that lying Fox news that reported that tea party was listed next to candidate name on voting ballots?
No, it wasn't. Imagine that!!!
Someone refresh my memory: As excl has asked already - who, or what "news" organization reported lies about Bush?
Also, which "news" organization reported, and showed, how "dangerous" GM pickups were? (But in fact, they had to use model rocket engines, and NO gas cap, to get the explosion they were looking for)
Which news organizations lie?
Oh, mac - even though I've told you well over 15 times over the years, were you aware I haven't, and don't watch FOX national news?????
Quote: Can someone refresh my memory? Was it that lying Fox news that reported that tea party was listed next to candidate name on voting ballots?
irog...oh how quickly tea partiers forget "facts" and just start making crap up...
I posted what I actually said just weeks ago...but for Tea Party members who can't seem to keep a single thought straight or would rather do what Fox News does...read on..
Tea Party? or Republican? #749595 - 11/03/10 08:17 AM
While voting, I noticed that "tea party" candidates were listed separately from Republicans.
....SPECIFICLY...I saw Robert M. Owens, listed as a candidate for Ohio's Attorney General...who was the Tea Party's candidate for Ohio's Attorney General.
...I hope you Tea Partiers can keep the facts straight.
Sweet and reasonable corporate voices were muttering in all the right ears last week. Editors were squared in private meetings and politicians lobbied at hearings in the House of Lords. Advertising agencies followed up the charming of opinion-formers with a #1 million campaign to convince the nation that genetically-engineered food presented no threat whatsoever to public health.
At first sight, the persuaders from the American biotechnology conglomerate, Monsanto, appeared to have an unenviable task. Its seeds are designed to maximise its profits. They have had genes spliced in which allow crops to tolerate herbicides that are made, of course, by Monsanto. The tinkering with plants' genetic code will allow farmers to spray poisons on their fields without risking the destruction of their crops.
Sober scientists warn of the danger that genes will jump from the crops into weeds, creating new species of superweeds with a resistance to herbicides. They talk of genetically manipulated organisms running amok in ecosystems which cannot handle them, like mink in the Norfolk Broads, and worry about how crops injected with the genes of bacteria, viruses, fish and insects will affect the 8% of children who cannot keep their dinner down because they are allergic to industrial food. But, apart from a heated meeting at the Guardian, the company met little resistance.
The Economist reinforced its reputation as the tired voice of conventional wisdom when it made a defence of the gene manipulators last week's lead item. Those who opposed agribusiness were Luddites, it thundered. Monsanto itself sounded like an unprecedentedly democratic and fair-minded conglomerate.
In advertisements in the national press, the firm promised to supply readers with the addresses of vocal green critics of the food industry. it was rare for a company to give free publicity to its opponents, Monsanto boasted, "but we believe that food is so fundamentally important, everyone should know all they want to about it."
The claim that this was an open, transparent company raised hollow laughs on the other side of the Atlantic. The American press is beginning to notice a scandal at a Florida TV station owned by Rupert Murdoch. Two of the station's reporters investigated Monsanto and allege they were bullied, censored and then fired for their impertinence. Their case raises the question of whether media owned by multinationals can hhonestly investigate corporate power. The answer, as far as Jane Akre and Steve Wilson are concerned, is no..
The husband and wife team joined Tampa's WTVT station in November 1996. They were reportes with decades of experience, rather than radical young hotheads out to make trouble. Their job was to break news and Akre quickly found what looked like a scoop. Florida's milk was coming from cows fed withh a Monsanto hormone called BGH. The hormone is legal in the U$ but was banned in many European countries after suggestions from medical researchers, contested by the company, that it may lead to cancer of the colon in humans.
Florida supermarkets admitted that they had quietly broken a promise not to buy milk from farms that used the hormone. Wilson said: "We found farmers who said the company wasn't properly reporting the drug's adverse effects on animals, a charge Monsanto eventually acknowledged. We also documented how Monsanto was using its legal and political muscle to oppose labelling efforts that would have helped consumers make a choice."
In short, the couple had a good story. WTVT certainly thought so and booked radio ads to promote the investigation. But just before the reports were due to be aired, Monsanto's lawyers contacted the executives of Fox TV, which runs the Florida channel for Murdoch, and complained that the documentaries were inaccurate.
WTVT went through the reports and told Fox managers that they could not fault their journalists' work. Fox disagreed, the programme was pulled and Wilson and Akre were forced to begin an extaordinary process in which the script for the show was rewritten 70 times.
They could not understand what was happening and told David Boylan, a Murdoch manager sent by Fox to Florida, that a valid, well-sourced news story was being stifled. Boylan's reply broke with all the traditions of the Murdoch empire. In a moment of insane candour, he told an unvarnished truth which should be framed and stuck on the top of every television set. "We paid $3 billion for these television stations," he snapped. "We'll decide what the news is. NEWS IS WHAT WE SAY IT IS."
How nicely put. According to documents supporting a court case the two reporters are bringing abainst Fox, Murdoch's people insisted the reporters say that "the public can be confident that milk from BGH-treated cows is safe." Monsanto told Fox that it had studies to support the assertation. The reporters said the studies were of cows, not humans. They claim the management replied with: "That's what Monsanto want, put it in." The couple refused, saying they would not broadcast inaccurate reports. At one point, according to their affidavit, the journalists were offered "large cash settlements" on condition they never talked about the hormone or how Fox handled news. They refused, and were ordered to change their script again and again.
None of the scores of rewrites pleased Murdoch's men. The couple were locked out of their offices at one point. After a year of fighting Fox, they were fired in December 1997. Their report was never broadcast. Fox accuses its journalists of "having delusions of grandeur" and being "advocates" for consumers. But the hacks say, in their evidence to what promises to be the first court case to investigate the workings of news organisations, the management could not point to a single factual error in their documentaries.
Murdoch owns, among many, many other companies, Actmedia, a PR firm. Monsanto is one of its clients. But Akre and Wilson do not believe that they were knifed simply to avoid upsetting one of the old brute's customers. They see the censorship as the natural consequence of the domination of communications by very right-wing businesses whose owners have more in common with the perpetrators of scandals than their audience.
"We set out to tell the truth about a giant chemical company", said Wilson. "That used to be something reporters won awards for. As we've learnt the hhard way, it's something you can be fired for these days".
This paragraph sums up Rupert Murdoch's attitude toward journalism and telling the truth...
They could not understand what was happening and told David Boylan, a Murdoch manager sent by Fox to Florida, that a valid, well-sourced news story was being stifled. Boylan's reply broke with all the traditions of the Murdoch empire. In a moment of insane candour, he told an unvarnished truth which should be framed and stuck on the top of every television set. "We paid $3 billion for these television stations," he snapped. "We'll decide what the news is. NEWS IS WHAT WE SAY IT IS."
What a great example of Murdoch's attitude toward telling the truth and journalism...
... adding Uncle Rupert's attitude and the Florida Courts ruling which gave Murdoch and Fox News the "legal" right to lie, the result is Fox's phony programing that pretends to be news.
Whether Americans allow Fox News and Murdoch to feed them a bunch of crap is up to individual Americans who have been warned, FOX NEWS LIES.
You Fox News supporters will have to forgive me if I refuse to allow a friggin Australian and his phony media sources to feed me a bunch of his lies, thinking I will believe them.
While voting, I noticed that "tea party" candidates were listed separately from Republicans.
....SPECIFICLY...I saw Robert M. Owens, listed as a candidate for Ohio's Attorney General...who was the Tea Party's candidate for Ohio's Attorney General.
...I hope you Tea Partiers can keep the facts straight.
Do they separate the candidates by party on Ohio ballots?
PS: This is not a sarcastic question, I ask because our ballots are alphabetical by candidate's last name.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: Can someone refresh my memory? Was it that lying Fox news that reported that tea party was listed next to candidate name on voting ballots?
irog...oh how quickly tea partiers forget "facts" and just start making crap up...
I posted what I actually said just weeks ago...but for Tea Party members who can't seem to keep a single thought straight or would rather do what Fox News does...read on..
Tea Party? or Republican? #749595 - 11/03/10 08:17 AM
While voting, I noticed that "tea party" candidates were listed separately from Republicans.
....SPECIFICLY...I saw Robert M. Owens, listed as a candidate for Ohio's Attorney General...who was the Tea Party's candidate for Ohio's Attorney General.
...I hope you Tea Partiers can keep the facts straight.
Quote: Robert M. Owens (born August 25, 1973 in Manchester, Connecticut), is a Delaware, Ohio lawyer who ran as an independent candidate for Ohio Attorney General in the November 4, 2008 election. Owens currently serves on the national council of The John Birch Society.[1]
Quote: Owens was endorsed by the Constitution Party,[7] Libertarian Party of Ohio,[8] as well as other minor parties.
Funny thing is that no where does he claim to be a 'Tea Party' member.
Now if you look back I'm the one who posted your original post before you. I reposted it because it shows how you try and spin the facts. Unfortunately for you no one buys it..
Quote: ]irog...oh how quickly tea partiers forget "facts" and just start making crap up...
Why is he a tea party member - what makes you think that?
Quote:
I posted what I actually said just weeks ago...but for Tea Party members who can't seem to keep a single thought straight or would rather do what Fox News does...read on..
Tea Party? or Republican? #749595 - 11/03/10 08:17 AM
While voting, I noticed that "tea party" candidates were listed separately from Republicans.
Yes, that is what you originally said. Correct. Get this mac - you said "I noticed.......CANDIDATES (that's with an S - as in plural - meaning, at a minimum - more than one)
Quote:
....SPECIFICLY...I saw Robert M. Owens, listed as a candidate for Ohio's Attorney General...who was the Tea Party's candidate for Ohio's Attorney General.
Care to enlighten us as to when you added this "condition"???? Do you have the date? Was it a few weeks, or even months after your original statement? Yup.
Quote:
...I hope you Tea Partiers can keep the facts straight.
Why do you incessantly refer to anyone that questions you as a Tea Party member? Or as a Fox news lackey? What's the point in that?
Quote: Robert M. Owens (born August 25, 1973 in Manchester, Connecticut), is a Delaware, Ohio lawyer who ran as an independent candidate for Ohio Attorney General in the November 4, 2008 election. Owens currently serves on the national council of The John Birch Society.[1]
Quote: Owens was endorsed by the Constitution Party,[7] Libertarian Party of Ohio,[8] as well as other minor parties.
Funny thing is that no where does he claim to be a 'Tea Party' member.
Now if you look back I'm the one who posted your original post before you. I reposted it because it shows how you try and spin the facts. Unfortunately for you no one buys it..
Good catch. He didn't run as a member of some Tea party any more than he ran as a member of some Constitution party, or some Libertarian party. He ran as - get this - an Independent
Imagine that. But in macs mind, because he was endorsed by 3 parties and ran as an independent, he must be a Tea Partier, huh?
Quote: ...I hope you Tea Partiers can keep the facts straight.
He can't even keep his own facts straight!!!!!!
He would have to have facts in order to keep them straight ....... and facts have never been mac's best friend.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Didn't the vast majority of Tea Party candidates run as Reublicans, in Republican primaries, and then leave the race entirely if they did not win the Republican nomination?
It seems to me that this was the case with damn near every "name" candidate who ran under the Tea Party banner.
It appears that he ran as a Constitution Party candidate with a Tea Party endorsement. In whatever case, he did not run as a Tea Party candidate .... it appears that he was merely endorsed by them. Given that the major party choices were Democrat Richard Cordray and Republican Mike Dewine, neither of whom would fit the Tea Party profile, then the Tea Party endorsing a 3rd party candidate is not surprising. That's what a movement of this type should do. They should go beyond "R" and "D" ..... but I guess that this is a mortal sin in mac's world.
However ... getting back to the previous garbage he spouted ..... the guy did not run as a Republican. So I guess mac was correct when he stated that he misinterpretted Tea Party to automatically mean Republican.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
What I find hilarious is seeing you DT TeaPartiers running like hell from your own party.....lol... ....claiming that Robert M. Owens never ran as a Tea Party candidate...lol...
In Ohio and nearly every state in the USA, the Tea Party is not recognized as a political party on election ballots because they have yet to successfully and legally challenge to be listed on the ballot (in Ohio).
Therefore, for the 2010 election, in Ohio, the best way to become the Tea Party's candidate was to fill out the Ohio Tea Party PAC's "survey", submit it to the Tea Party PAC, and wait to see if they pass the Tea Party test and win the endorsement of Ohio's Tea Party PAC....which Robert M. Owens did.
Robert Owens sought and was awarded the Ohio Tea Party PAC endorsement.
Before Robert Owens was soundly defeated by Dewine and Cordary, he proudly listed his Tea Party PAC endorsement for all to see. Today, it appears that Robert Owens has moved on, his 2010 election website taken down.
The Tea Party PAC of Ohio, did list Robert Owens as their man, the first statewide candidate in Ohio to be endorsed by the Ohio Tea Party PAC.
You Tea Partiers may not want to claim Robert Owens as one of your own "now", but he was on my ballot and when I did a quick search before election day for Tea Party candidates in Ohio, Robert Owens name was listed on the Ohio Tea Party PAC's website, running for Ohio Attorney General.
Here's the scoop - you keep spitting out this "You tea partier's" crap......you look/sound so juvenile when you do that. I know you don't see it. But I also question whether you know what 2+2 is. Your mentality seems stuck on "suck up to the huffington post and the democrat party and Obama".
Dude, get off the "Tea Partier" bit. It gets old when you accuse anyone that doesn't follow you of being one of them. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
And in between the overs, you make stuff up and accuse others of lying.
Whyat is really, really hilarious is you LW'ers spewing crap that not only makes no sense, but that often contradicts what you, yourself said earlier.
That's what's really hilarious ......and you can't even see it because you refuse to take the blinders off ........
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
